State Of Uttarakhand And Another ... vs Ramanand
2024 Latest Caselaw 768 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

State Of Uttarakhand And Another ... vs Ramanand on 24 April, 2024

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
              AT NAINITAL
                     MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI, C.J.
                                AND
                      MR. RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

                         24TH APRIL, 2024
          SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2024
State of Uttarakhand and another ...............Appellants.

Versus

Ramanand                                               ..Respondent
Counsel for the appellants         :   Mr. Mohindar S. Bisht, learned Brief
                                       Holder for the State / appellants.

Counsel for the respondent         :   Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel.




Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court
made the following


JUDGMENT :

(per: Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)

The Service-Book of the writ

petitioner/respondent has been produced by the

counsel for the State in the Court today. A perusal of

the same shows that at the first page, there are two

handwritings and the handwriting, by which the date of

birth of the writ petitioner / respondent has been

entered, does not match with the handwriting, whereby

the name, attendance and signatures of the writ

petitioner / respondent are written. Even at the first

page of the Service-Book, there are two separate

stamps made by the Assistant Engineer one in Hindi and another in English. Therefore, these entries appear

to have been made on two different sets of time. It

cannot be taken that these were made on the same

day. The Service Book is returned.

2. Learned Single Judge, in the order dated 10th

August, 2023, has observed that when as per the letter

dated 16.04.2006, the writ petitioner/ respondent was

asked to furnish certificate of his educational

qualifications, he gave his educational testimonials, in

which his date of birth was clearly written as

09.01.1969. In the writ petition, the School Leaving

Certificate of the writ petitioner / respondent is

Annexure-1, which is at Page No.17, wherein the date

of birth of the writ petitioner / respondent is reflected

as 09.01.1969, and this document was, however, made

basis to allow the writ petition by observing that

keeping in view of this Certificate, the date of birth of

the respondent ought to have been corrected in the

Service Book.

3. Today, we have perused the service book

and have observed that there are two sets of

handwritings in the Service Book, one is with regard to

the entry of the date of birth and the second is with

regard to the joining of the writ petitioner / respondent

and his signature. They are both in different sets of

handwritings. The School Leaving Certificate, which is

at Page 17 of the writ petition, has rightly been made

basis to allow the writ petition by directing that the

date of birth of the writ petitioner / respondent be

taken as 09.01.1969.

4. The Special Appeal filed by the State is, therefore,

dismissed.

_____________ RITU BAHRI, C.J.

__________________ RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

Dt: 24th April, 2024 Rathour